list_conversations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it reads only locally stored messages, makes no Signal server call, marks nothing as read, and names come from the cached signal-cli contacts/groups. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure that structured fields cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then alternatives, then behavioral caveats, then the return shape. Despite being dense, every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the full return shape (id, type, name, last_message, last_message_at, message_count, unread_count) and even explains how to pass the id onward. Nothing an agent needs to call and consume this tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4; the description confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which is consistent with the empty schema. There is no further parameter meaning to add.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (every conversation, direct and group) with scope ('in the local store, most recent first — an inbox overview'). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling readers like get_conversation, get_unread, and search_messages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with conditions: 'Use get_conversation to read one, get_unread for only new messages, search_messages to find text.' Nothing is left to inference about when to pick this tool versus its neighbors.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.